Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/07/2004 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting October 7, 2004 ORIGINAL 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission was called to order by Chair PLUMMER at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Commission Members Present: Jim Chilvers John McMillin Marian McNamee Phil Plununer Jerry Scezney Kim Stewart Scott Wesley Kevin Witt Staff Members Present: Alan White, Community Development Director Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner JeffHirt, Planning Technician Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Following is the official set of Planning Commission minutes for the public hearing of October 7, 2004. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Community Development Department of the City of Wheat Ridge. 4. APPROVE ORDER OF AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner WESLEY and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 5. APPROVE MINUTES - August 5, 2004 It was moved by Commissioner WESLEY and seconded by Commissioner McNAMEE to approve the minutes of August 5, 2004 as presented. The motion passed 5-0 with Commissioners PLUMMER, SCEZNY and WITT abstaining. 6. PUBLIC FORUM No one indicated a desire to speak at this time. Planning Commission October 7, 2004 Page I 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. MS-04-07: An application filed by Keith Gantenbein for approval of a two- lot minor subdivision plat for properties located at approximately 3821 and 3841 Otis Street. The case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. The purpose of the subdivision is to allow for adjustment of a lot line by two feet to allow construction of a two-family dwelling on one of the lots (lot 6). The second lot (lot 7) is presently used as a parking lot for the adjacent apartment building. It is possible to place as a condition of approval that lot 7 can only be used as parking for the adjacent apartment building in the future, Staff recommended approval of the application for reasons, and with conditions, outlined in the staff report. In response to a question from Commissioner WESLEY, Mr. Hirt explained that, under present zoning, a single family home could be built on lot 7 which would leave the apartment building without a parking lot. Commissioner CHIL VERS commented that he lives in this neighborhood and looks forward to the improvement this application will bring. He asked if curb and gutter would be required. Mr. Hirt explained that curb and gutter for Lot 6 would be required when development occurs on Lot 6. Commissioner STEWART asked if the city could require the parking lot to be paved. Alan White replied that, because the apartment building and parking lot were constructed prior to the city's incorporation, it would not be possible to require paving at this time. However, if"site development" as defined in the code should occur in the future, pavement could be required at that time. Keith Gantenbein 8106 Druhill Road, Golden Mr. Gantenbein explained that the lot size insufficiency came to light as the result of a survey. If the application is approved, he plans to build a two-family dwelling on Lot 6 and the city will require curb and gutter at the time of development. In response to a question from Commissioner WESLEY, Mr. Gantenbein stated there would be off-street parking for his proposed development. He showed the Commissioners elevations of a similar duplex he recently completed in Golden. Art & Barbara Coltrin Mr. and Mrs. Coltrin own the subject property. Mr. Coltrin stated that, as soon as weather permits, Lot 7 would be graded. Lot 6 is for sale because it serves no purpose to the apartment building. He further stated that he is upgrading the existing apartment building. Chair PLUMMER asked ifthere were anyone present who wished to address this matter. There was no response. Planning Commission October 7,2004 Page 2 Commissioner WESLEY commented that he would support approval ofthe application because it presents an improvement to the area. In response to a question from Commissioner McNAMEE, Mr. Hirt replied that no comments have been received from the neighbors regarding the application. She expressed concern that the application would probably result in more rental property in Wheat Ridge. Mr. Coltrin commented that many rental units already exist in the area. It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner WESLEY to approve a lot size variance of 562 square feet and a lot width variance of 8.95 feet to the R-3 development standards for 3841 Otis Street, or Lot 7 of the Anel Subdivision, for the following reasons: 1. Lot 7 is currently used as parking for the multi-family structure to the north at 3851 Otis Street. The decrease in square footage as a result of this request for Lot 7 will not impact the parking required for this building. 2. The City will impose a condition of approval on the plat regarding Lot 7 in order to restrict the ability to develop this parcel relative to its use as parking for a multi-family structure located to the north. 3. It is the opinion of staff that an incentive to develop this vacant unmaintained lot would be beneficial. 4. The variance to allow a duplex on Lot 6 will not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. The motion passed 8-0. It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to approve Case No. MS-04-07, a two-lot minor subdivision plat for property located at approximately 3821 and 3841 Otis Street, for the following reasons: 1. All requirements of the City's Subdivision Regulations have been met. 2. The minimum lot size and lot width requirements for the lot to be developed meets the R-3 zone district requirements because the variances were approved. 3. Based on the wide variety of land uses in the immediate area, a duplex will not be out of character with the neighborhood. 4. The City will impose a condition of approval on the plat regarding Lot 7. It will be beneficial to restrict the ability to develop this parcel for anything other than its use as parking for the multi-family structure located to the north. 5. It is the opinion of staff that an incentive to develop this vacant unmaintained lot would be beneficial. With the following condition: A note be added as follows:. "Lot 7 shall only be used as accessory to the multi-family structure at 3851 Otis Street as long as the multi-family structure is in existence. In the event that the use changes at 3851 Otis Street or if parking for the apartments is acquired Planning Commission October 7, 2004 Page 3 elsewhere, Lot 7 can be developed in accordance with applicable zoning regulations." The motion passed 8-0. B. Case No. ZOA-03-18: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to signage. The case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She distributed a proposed amendment by staff regarding reader-board menus. She reviewed the staff report containing proposed amendments to the sign code. Previous suggestions made by the Commission were incorporated into the proposed amendments. In response to a question from Commissioner McMILLIN regarding the length of life for cabinet signs, Ms. Reckert stated that in talking with a sign company representative, she learned that the life depends upon the quality of construction. Nonconforming signs can stay until changes are requested. Commissioner SCEZNY questioned the value of making a differentiation between natural causes or vandalism in the destruction or removal of more than 50% of a nonconforming sign. There was discussion regarding a possible requirement to replace nonconforming signs regardless of the reason they are destroyed. There was a consensus of the Commission that it is very important to consider sight triangles when placing signs at signalized intersections. During discussion of banner regulations, Commissioner McMILLIN commented that there have been no comments from the business community regarding limitation on banners. Chair PLUMMER invited comments from those in attendance. Milton Tedford Mr. Tedford expressed concern about rental property which he constructed about twenty years ago south of 44th on Moore. The city granted a temporary sign permit and, for the past twenty years he has had a sign on private property located at 44tl1 and Moore. He has an agreement with the property owner for placement of the sign. He stated the sign is crucial in obtaining tenants for his 52 rental units on Moore. On August 3, 2004, he received notification from the city that the sign was in violation because it was an off-premises sign. His suggestions to remedy the situation included: (I) that his sign be grandfathered; (2) that the sign code allow property within 100 yards of a main arterial street to have off-premises signage; and (3) twenty years with the sign in the same place should be supported under the statute of limitations. He submitted photos of his property and other off-premises signs along West 44th Avenue. Ms. Reckert commented that while there was evidence that a temporary sign permit was issued in 1985, there are no records showing that it was ever renewed. Nancy Snow 11155 West 40th Ms. Snow expressed concern about large balloons that block views of mountains and excessive Planning Commission October 7, 2004 Page 4 pennants and banners that clutter up the city and detract from landscaping. She agreed with a height limit for balloons but would like to see a size limit, also. She would also like to see a limit on the size and number of streamers and pennants. She also pointed out that flags are not defmed in sign code and there is no limit on their size or number. She would like to see a limit on the number of political signs to eliminate several signs in one yard for the same candidate or issue. There also needs to be a definition in the chart for changeable signs. Gretchen Cerveny Ms. Cerveny testified as the city's mayor and former small business owner. She stated that part of the attraction of Wheat Ridge is its eclectic nature. City revenues come from use and sales taxes and business licenses and therefore the sign code should be supportive of businesses. Small businesses often have very limited resources and banners and pennants are inexpensive ways to advertise. She supported a limitation on the number of temporary permits since small business owners have a hard time leaving their businesses to keep getting permits and the city is limited on hiring people to keep track of the permits. She favored allowing businesses to have at least one banner. She suggested educational efforts to inform small business owners about signage. She favored a sign code that is flexible and that will honor the diversity of Wheat Ridge. Commissioner McMILLIN commented that banners may be used as a low-cost substitute for a manufactured sign. There was a consensus of the Commission that the sign code needs more consideration. Staff will also survey surrounding jurisdictions regarding their sign codes. It was moved by Commissioner McNAMEE and seconded by Commissioner WESLEY to continue Case No. ZOA-03-18 to a date uncertain. The motion passed unanimously. 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Commission. 10. COMMISSION REPORTS There were no Commission reports. 11. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS There were no committee and department reports. 12. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner CHIL VERS and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to adjourn the meeting at 10:02 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. (2. ~^: Ann Lazzeri, Recor . g cretary Planning Commission October 7,2004 Page 5